34576 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

HSTCU having part number 601R92301–5,

601R92301–7, or 601R92301–951.

(d)(1) An alternative method of compliance

or adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, New York

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, New York ACO.

(d)(2) Alternative methods of compliance

approved previously in accordance with AD

95–13–04, amendment 39–9325, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York ACO.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(f) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 601R–

27–053, Revision B, dated February 21, 1997.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Bombardier, Inc., Canadair Aerospace

Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville,

Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Engine and

Propeller Directorate, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third

Floor, Valley Stream, New York; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Canadian airworthiness directive CF–95–

08R2, dated July 23, 1996.

(g) This amendment becomes effective on

July 30, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 15,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–16448 Filed 6–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–78–AD; Amendment

39–10614; AD 98–13–23]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300–600 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Airbus Model

A300–600 series airplanes, that requires

inspections to detect corrosion and

cracking of the lower horizontal

stabilizer cutout longeron, the corner

fitting, the skin strap, and the outer

skin; and repair, if necessary. This

amendment is prompted by cracking

found at the lower corner of the

horizontal stabilizer cutout longeron

during a full scale fatigue test. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent such cracking,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the horizontal-stabilizer

cutout longeron.

DATES: Effective July 30, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of July 30,

1998.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

France. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116 FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Airbus

Model A300–600 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

December 12, 1995 (60 FR 63665). That

action proposed to require repetitive

visual and eddy current inspections to

detect corrosion and fatigue cracking of

the lower horizontal stabilizer cutout

longeron, the corner fitting, the skin

strap, and the skin between FR87 and

FR89 and between STGR24 and

STGR27, left-hand and right-hand. That

action also proposed to require

repetitive rotating probe inspections to

detect cracks in the fastener holes at the

same locations; and repair or certain

follow-on actions, if necessary.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

One commenter has no objection to

the proposed rule.

Request to Revise Compliance Time to

Permit ‘‘Adjustment of Range’’

One commenter, the manufacturer,

requests that the compliance times for

the inspection threshold and the

repetitive intervals proposed be revised

to follow the recommendations of the

Airbus service bulletin specified in the

proposed rule. That service bulletin

specifies that inspection thresholds and

intervals may be adjusted based on

certain average flight operations of the

airplane. The commenter states that this

approach was approved by the Direction

Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC),

which is the airworthiness authority for

France, in its approval of the service

bulletin.

The FAA does not concur that the

compliance times should be revised. As

explained in the proposal, the FAA has

determined that such adjustments may

not address the unsafe condition in a

timely manner. In developing

appropriate compliance times for the

proposed rule, the FAA considered not

only the manufacturer’s

recommendation, but the safety

implications involved with cracking of

the horizontal stabilizer cutout longeron

and the number of landings that had

been accumulated when cracking was

detected. Therefore, this AD does not

permit such adjustments, and no change

to the compliance times of the final rule

has been made. However, operators may

request approval of an adjustment of the

compliance time under the provisions of

paragraph (f) of this AD, provided that

such adjustment provides an acceptable

level of safety.

Remove Touch-and-Go Landings From

the Total Number of Landings

This same commenter requests that

touch-and-go landings not be included

in calculating the total number of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34577

airplane landings. The commenter

points out that most of the relevant

fatigue parameters for touch-and-go

flights are less significant than for

conditions of normal flight. Further, the

commenter states that including touchand-go’s in the total landing count for

an individual airplane is too

conservative, considering the high

penalty of counting each touch-and-go.

The FAA does not concur. Fatigue

cracking has been found at the lower

corner of the horizontal stabilizer cutout

longeron. Since fatigue cracking in that

area is aggravated by landing, the FAA

finds that all touch-and-go landings

must be counted in determining the

total number of landings between

consecutive inspections.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 2 Airbus

Model A300–600 series airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD, that

it will take approximately 268 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required actions, and that the average

labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$32,160, or $16,080 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

98–13–23 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–10614. Docket 95–NM–78–AD.

Applicability: Model A300–600 series

airplanes on which Airbus Modification No.

6146 has not been installed, certificated in

any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must use the authority

provided in paragraph (f) of this AD to

request approval from the FAA. This

approval may address either no action, if the

current configuration eliminates the unsafe

condition; or different actions necessary to

address the unsafe condition described in

this AD. Such a request should include an

assessment of the effect of the changed

configuration on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD. In no case does the

presence of any modification, alteration, or

repair remove any airplane from the

applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent reduced structural integrity of

the horizontal stabilizer cutout longeron due

to fatigue cracking, accomplish the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 18,000 total

landings, or within 2,000 landings after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later: Perform a visual and an eddy current

inspection to detect cracks and/or corrosion

of Areas 1 and 2 of the lower horizontal

stabilizer cutout longeron, as defined in

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6042,

Revision 1, dated February 20, 1995. Perform

the inspections in accordance with the

service bulletin.

(b) Perform a visual and an eddy current

inspection to detect cracks and/or corrosion

of Area 3 of the lower horizontal stabilizer

cutout longeron, as defined in Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–53–6042, Revision 1, dated

February 20, 1995. Perform these inspections

in accordance with the service bulletin, at the

later of the times specified in paragraphs

(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD.

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 24,000

total landings, but not before the

accumulation of 18,000 total landings; or

(2) Prior to the accumulation of 2,000

landings after the effective date of this AD.

(c) If no cracking is detected during any

inspection required by this AD: Prior to

further flight, cold work and ream the

vacated fastener holes, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6042,

Revision 1, dated February 20, 1995; and

perform the requirements of paragraph (c)(1)

or (c)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

(1) For airplanes on which no cracking is

found in Area 1 or 2: Repeat the inspections

required by paragraph (a) of this AD

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000

flight cycles.

(2) For airplanes on which no cracking is

found in Area 3: Perform the various followon actions in accordance with the service

bulletin. (The follow-on actions include

installing a new corner fitting, installing a

new longeron, and performing a cold

working procedure.) After accomplishment of

these follow-on actions, no further action is

required by this AD.

(d) If any cracking is detected during any

inspection required by this AD, perform the

requirements of paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of

this AD, as applicable.

(1) If any cracking is found in Area 1 or 3

that is within the limits specified in Airbus

Service Bulletin A300–53–6042, Revision 1,

dated February 20, 1995: Prior to further

flight, repair in accordance with the service

bulletin.

(2) If any cracking is found in Area 2, or

if any cracking is found in any area and that

cracking is beyond the limits described in

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6042,

Revision 1, dated February 20, 1995: Prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

(e) If any corrosion is detected during any

inspection required by this AD, prior to

further flight, repair the corrosion in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–53–6042, Revision 1, dated February

20, 1995.

(f) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of
34578 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Manager, International

Branch, ANM–116.

(g) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(h) Except as provided by paragraph (d)(2)

of this AD, the actions shall be done in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–53–6042, Revision 1, dated February

20, 1995. This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 94–269–

171(B)R1, dated March 29, 1995.

(i) This amendment becomes effective on

July 30, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 15,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–16472 Filed 6–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–ANE–15–AD; Amendment

39–10612; AD 98–13–21]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce

Limited, Aero Division-Bristol,

S.N.E.C.M.A Olympus 593 Series

Turbojet Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to Rolls-Royce Limited, Aero

Division-Bristol, S.N.E.C.M.A Olympus

593 series turbojet engines. This action

requires initial and repetitive visual

inspections of the low pressure (LP)

shaft signal system for cable wear and

refurbishment of the LP shaft signal

system at when the cable is found

frayed, or at every engine shop visit,

whichever occurs first. This amendment

is prompted by reports of frayed rear

cables in the LP shaft signal system. The

actions specified in this AD are

intended to prevent LP shaft signal

system failure, which could result in an

LP turbine overspeed, burst,

uncontained engine failure, and damage

to the aircraft in the event of a LP shaft

failure.

DATES: Effective July 10, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of July 10,

1998.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

August 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), New England

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–ANE–

15–AD, 12 New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA 01803–5299. Comments

may also be sent via the Internet using

the following address: ‘‘9-adengineprop@faa.dot.gov’’. Comments

sent via the Internet must contain the

docket number in the subject line.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from RollsRoyce, PO Box 3, Filton, Bristol BS12

7QE, England; telephone 01–17–979–

1234, fax 01–17–979–7575. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, New England Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine

Certification Office, FAA, Engine and

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803–

5299; telephone (781) 238–7747, fax

(781) 238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Civil

Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the

airworthiness authority for the United

Kingdom (UK), recently notified the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

that an unsafe condition may exist on

Rolls-Royce Limited (R–R), Aero

Division-Bristol, S.N.E.C.M.A. Olympus

593 Mk. 610–14–28 turbojet engines.

The CAA advises that they have

received reports of frayed rear cables in

the low pressure (LP) shaft signal

system. The LP shaft signal system

prevents the LP turbine disk from

bursting in the event of LP shaft failure

by cutting off the fuel when excess twist

is detected in the shaft. The rear cable

activates the fuel shut-off valve. This

condition, if not corrected, could result

in LP shaft signal system failure, which

could result in an LP turbine overspeed,

burst, uncontained engine failure, and

damage to the aircraft in the event of a

LP shaft failure.

There are currently no affected

engines operated on aircraft of U.S.

registry. This AD, then, is necessary to

require accomplishment of the required

actions for engines installed on aircraft

currently of foreign registry that may

someday be imported into the U.S or

which may be operated in U.S. airspace.

Accordingly, the FAA has determined

that notice and prior opportunity for

comment are unnecessary and good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

R–R has issued Service Bulletin (SB)

No. OL.593–76–9039–71, Revision 2,

dated July 23, 1997, that specifies

procedures for visual inspection of the

LP shaft signal system for cable wear

and refurbishment of the LP shaft signal

system. The CAA classified this SB as

mandatory and issued AD 009–09–97 in

order to assure the airworthiness of

these engines in the UK.

This engine model is manufactured in

the UK and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the CAA has kept the FAA informed of

the situation described above. The FAA

has examined the findings of the CAA,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other engines of the same

type design registered in the United

States, this AD requires initial and

repetitive visual inspections of the LP

shaft signal system for cable wear and

refurbishment of the LP shaft signal

system when the cable is found frayed,

or at every engine shop visit, whichever

occurs first. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the SB described

previously.

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not